An 'expert' claims that wearing a mask is beneficial.
This is not supported by the evidence.
The above two tables are from a 2010 meta-analysis paper by Cowling. You’ll notice there is no overall significant difference in any of the papers of masks on secondary attacks of influenza (or self-reported colds or ‘flu like symptoms) vs control.
Hand washing plus masks lowered incidence in weeks 4-6 only in the Aeolli study, but masks alone did not improve over control.
The 2008 RCT paper in fact showed a 16% increased in odds ratio of secondary attacks of ‘flu from wearing a mask.
A quick revision of the OR- which is the events in the control divided by those in the treatment. If the odds ratio is less than one then the treatment causes less events, if greater than one; more events.
Using the standard CDC clinical criteria for influenza showed that wearing masks caused an OR of 2 ie there was a 100% increase in secondary attacks overall. If there was 6% incidence of symptoms without wearing a mask, there was 12% with one!
The 2009 re-analysis of interventions less than 36 hours after onset highlighted in the review paper only shows significant difference in mask wearing with hand washing in two criteria of influenza, from 12% to 4%, however, there was no significant improvement of masks over handwashing alone. And by using clinical criteria 1 to assess ‘flu incidence attacks went from 11% with hand washing to 18% with hand washing and masks!
Meaning that the effect of hand washing wasn’t separated from that of masks and wasn’t significantly improved by their addition.
Even a GCSE student knows that neither Cowling’s review, nor the papers in it, represent any evidence of the efficacy of mask wearing in symptoms or PCR positives. The authors agreed saying there was ‘little evidence to support’ the wearing of masks yet insisted more research would ‘may well’ prove their worth and this was vital for ‘future pandemics’. Eerie and not the scientific method; to start by predicting the outcome. Cowling is saying there is no evidence, therefore we need to do more research until we find evidence, because it’s his opinion that wearing masks will be vital.
The lack of evidence was blamed on the compliance and face covering handling of the pesky public who objected to the difficulty in breathing and communicating and to the distress and discomfort of having wet bacteria filled materials slung across their ears. If human beings, who are the ones who have to wear them, find even well fitting, properly handled masks uncomfortable, restrictive and distressing; why is feasibility, practicality and adherence not the primary consideration when the efficacy of face covering is being assessed? Ozempic may be a wonder drug but as most people stop taking it because of the side-effects, then it can’t be any good.
Referring back to the 2010 review let’s look at the low case mortality in the 1918 study which was allegedly associated with natural ventilation in an open air hospital in Boston. ‘The treatment at Camp Brooks Hospital took place outdoors, with “a maximum of sunshine and of fresh air day and night.”. The medical officer in charge, Major Thomas F. Harrington, had studied the history of his patients and found that the worst cases of pneumonia came from the parts of ships that were most badly ventilated’ (as had Florence Nightingale previously, though she was largely ignored). There is no indication that staff were protected by gauze masks rather than the open air situation. It was not tested for with and without masks, or without hand washing. In another study patients with the Spanish ‘flu who were directed to cough directly into healthy people’s faces could produce no ‘transmission’ of symptoms. Nurses wearing masks to protect themselves, which were made from gravy strainers with 5 layers of gauze inside and taped behind the head, enforced by a superintendent, had no bearing on the lower case mortality of the patients from pneumonia. It’s disingenuous to suggest that they did. As long as medical staff wash their hands, not necessarily in 1/1000 corrosive sublimate (mercury bichloride) or triple lysol (benzalkonium chloride and hydrogen peroxide), soap and water is fine, they don’t personally make their patients sick. Surgeons only wear masks to stop themselves gobbing into open wounds or incisions. I expect that the nurses in the open air hospital also wore white hats and sensible shoes as well as gravy strainers, yet these are not cited as part of the technique or recommended for us now. ‘The efficacy of open air treatment has been absolutely proven, and one has only to try it to discover its value.’ I wonder why people are harking on about masks instead of washing in corrosives or natural ventilation from open air treatment?
The lead author of all 3 papers, Cowling, went on to be a talking head and career ‘expert’ scientist in 2020 saying that masks were effective, especially N95 ones, which are ‘really, really effective’. Or course they’re not. Disease is not caused by contagions and covid isn’t a thing. But even by there own studies, which they admit are biased by study size, confounding of other factors and the fact that medical staff have lower ‘covid’ events, found surgical masks to be ineffective. The N95 only appeared to make a 0.4-2% difference over the method of not covering with cloth, plastic or respirators our highly evolved, sensitive and responsive respiratory organs. Similar to the jabs; about 1% of treatment have common detox symptoms or non-specific PCR compared to about 2% of control.
What would be beneficial to human health would be addressing the obesity and loneliness epidemics. But no, $trillions are spent researching and buying plastic products and into injecting heavy metals, that even in industry’s own studies show minuscule clinical improvements.
No, wait! I misspoke. The symptoms are the healing not the disease. The absence of symptoms which expel toxins is not an improvement. The symptoms of detox should not be suppressed. This would explain the overall increase in symptoms in people told to wear masks and confirms their compliance, not their lack of it. Face coverings stress the body, mind and soul. They cause headaches, frustration and isolation. They make wearers inhale expelled air, decaying bacterial cells and toxins. The body then responds with fever, mucus, sneezing, coughing, inflammation and inducement to rest.
Two of my abiding memories of the covid travesty are a mother, sweetly and gently trying to get her screaming toddler to put on a face mask and Ernest Ramirez weeping inconsolably after the death of his only son who took part in the Pfizer jab trial.
🐒